Selection, Dispersal and Mode of Reproduction: Attributes Contributing to Local Adaptation by Apterothrips apteris to Erigeron glaucus

  • Sharon Y. Strauss
  • Richard Karban
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 276)

Abstract

The thrips, Apterothrips apteris, has been shown to exhibit fine-scale local adaptation to individuals of its host plant, Erigeron glaucus. Several processes affect the degree to which adaptive genetic differentiation occurs. Selection by the host plant must be strong enough to override the homogenizing effects of gene flow between thrips populations. Here we provide estimates of the strength of selection by E. glaucus host plants on thrips colonists. In addition, we describe the rates of colonization of new hosts by thrips. We find that the strength of selection exerted by the host plant is strong enough to effect local differentiation of thrips populations, given the migration rate between populations and the subsequent reproductive success of colonists. Finally, we describe annual patterns of male production and the relative incidence of sexual and parthenogenetic reproduction by thrips in relation to colonization.

Keywords

Host Plant Gene Flow Local Adaptation Founder Effect Spider Mite 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References Cited

  1. Antonovics, J. & A. D. Bradshaw. 1970. Evolution in closely adjacent plant populations. VIII. Heredity 25: 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Crespi, B. 1993. Sex allocation ratio selection in Thysanoptera. In D. L. Wrensch & M. A. Ebert [eds.], Evolution and diversity of sex ratio. Chapman and Hall, NY and London.Google Scholar
  3. Ebenhard, T. 1991. Colonization in metapopulations: a review of theory and observations. Biol. J. of the Linnaean Soc. 42: 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edmunds, G. F. & D. A. Alstad. 1978. Coevolution in insect herbivores and conifers. Sci. 199: 941–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Endler, J. A. 1977. Geographic variation, speciation and clines. Princeton University Press, NJ. 1986. Natural selection in the wild. Princeton University Press, NJ.Google Scholar
  6. Falconer, D. S. 1981. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman Group Ltd., London and NY.Google Scholar
  7. Futuyma, D. J. & S. C. Peterson. 1985. Genetic variation in the use of resources by insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 30: 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gould, F. 1983. Genetics of plant-herbivore systems: interactions between applied and basic study. In R. F. Denno & M. S. McClure [eds.], Variable plants and herbivores in natural and managed systems. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Hanks, L. M. & R. F. Denno. 1994. Evidence for local adaptation in the armored scale insect Pseudaulacapsis pentagona (Targioni Tozetti) (Homoptera: Diaspididae). Ecology (in press).Google Scholar
  10. Karban, R. 1987. Effects of clonal variation of the host plant, interspecific competition, and climate on the population size of folivorous thrips. Oecologia 74: 298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Karban, R. 1989a. Fine-scale adaptation of herbivorous thrips to individual host plants. Nature 340: 60–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karban, R. 1989b. Community organization of Erigeron glaucus folivores: effects of competition, predation, and host plant. Ecology 70: 1028–4039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karban, R. & S. Y. Strauss. 1994. Colonization of new host plant individuals by a locally adapted thrips. Ecography 17: 82–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis, T. 1973. Thrips: their biology, ecology and economic importance. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. McNeilly, T. 1968. Evolution in closely adjacent plant populations. III. Agrostis tenuis on a small copper mine. Heredity 23: 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Michod, R. E. & B. R. Levin. 1988. The evolution of sex. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Slatkin, M. 1985. Gene flow in natural populations. Ann. Rev. of Ecology and Systematics 16: 393–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Slatkin, M. 1987. Gene flow and the geographic structure of natural populations. Science 236: 787–792.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Strauss, S. Y. & R. Karban. 1994a. The significance of outcrossing in an intimate plant-herbivore relationship. I. Does outcrossing provide an escape from herbivores adapted to the parent plant? Evolution (in press).Google Scholar
  20. 1994b. The significance of outcrossing in an intimate plant-herbivore relationship. II. Does outcrossing pose a problem to thrips adapted to the parent plant? Evolution (in press).Google Scholar
  21. Wainhouse, D. & R. S. Howell. 1983. Intraspecific variation in beech scale populations and in susceptibility of their host Fagus sylvatica. Ecol. Ent. 8: 351–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wrensch, D. L. 1993. Evolutionary flexibility through haploid males or how chance favors the prepared genome. In D. L. Wrensch & M. A. Ebert [eds.], Evolution and diversity of sex ratio. Chapman and Hall, New York and London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharon Y. Strauss
    • 1
  • Richard Karban
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Entomology, Section of Evolution & EcologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations